People
People and people’s images (images of their face or body) are not protected by copyright. Sometimes, however, other areas of law, such as defamation and the Trade Practices Act, can affect the circumstances in which a person’s image can be used (see “Other areas of law”, below).

Copyright protection is automatic
You do not apply for copyright in Australia, and there is no system of registration here. Nor are there any forms to fill in, or fees to be paid. You do not need to publish your work, put a copyright notice on it, or do anything else before your work is covered by copyright – the protection is free and automatic, from the time a work is first written down or recorded in some way. For example, as soon as a poem is written, or a song is recorded, it is protected.

At the risk of only creating more confusion as to what copyright protects, the quote that Neil has posted from the Copyright Council's website is a bit confusing insofar as it might suggest that there can't be copyright in a photograph of a person (which is plainly wrong). The main point of that paragraph is simply that you can't stop someone from taking a photograph of you (or publishing that photo) by asserting that you own copyright in your own image.

Also, without getting into the detail of it, there is an exception to copyright infringement for reporting news. This means that in certain circumstances a newspaper would be able to copy a photograph from an online source if it is reasonably connected to a news event that they are reporting on, and this won't infringe copyright. The Copyright Council has an information sheet on this here: http://www.copyright.org.au/G079.pdf

This isn't a comment on what is right or wrong ethically, just some clarification on what the copyright position is.

"If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, or that your intellectual property rights have been otherwise violated, please provide Yahoo!'s Copyright Agent with the following information:

1. an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other intellectual property interest;
2. a description of the copyrighted work or other intellectual property that you claim has been infringed;
3. a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the Yahoo! site, with enough detail that we may find it on the web site;
4. your address, telephone number, and email address;
5. a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright or intellectual property owner, its agent, or the law;
6. a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright or intellectual property owner or authorized to act on the copyright or intellectual property owner's behalf."

>Fair dealing for reporting news >Copyright material may be used in reporting news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, >or in a film, or by means of a broadcast. The author and title of the work must be acknowledged. >The Federal Court has held that “news” is not restricted to current events. For example, old >material, or footage that was never related to a current event, may be relevant to current news >events. Alternatively, under this provision investigative journalists may be able to use copyright >material they have discovered that relates to past events. In looking at whether a person’s use of >copyright material comes within the exception of fair dealing for reporting >news, courts are likely to require more than simply a connection with a newsworthy topic. The >crucial element in determining whether the exception applies seems to be whether the primary >purpose is to report or comment on news. Although courts have held that reporting news may >involve the use of humour, it seems that where a court considers the purpose of using the >material is primarily to entertain, the presence of newsworthy issues is not sufficient to make the >use a fair dealing.

So, it appears they CAN use it providing they credit the photographer - which they didn't.

Another interesting bits states:

>Factors that may be taken into account in working out whether a use is “fair” include whether the >person using the material is doing so for commercial purposes, and whether the copyright owner >is out of pocket from the use (for example, where a person copies the whole of a work that is >available for sale). The mere fact that the person using the material is not making a profit does >not make it fair.

A newspaper makes money by selling papers and online ads - i would think this is a commercial usage of our photos. Certainly if you have a history of selling photos for profit (Simon Carter) you would be able to prove that you are losing money by them publishing it without your permission.

Thanks for all the insights guys....! I also saw that thing on copyright saying that "reporting news" is exempt (after posting it). Im thinking the best thing to do would be to contact flickr/yahoo and go from there? Im not one for "sueing" and don't want to be accused of bagging the media when we havn't obtained legal advice about whether they have really done anything wrong (as they may be allowed to do this, without checking legal advice, we probably won't know).

Wouldn't it be a nice bonus for climbers though, to receive a payment for what they have done and donate it back to the climbing community/re-bolting fund to prevent further injuries or to donate it to Nick's memorial. I don't care about the money for the photo myself. We are just amateur photographers really (though Tim has sold some photos to Rock Mag), but definately not enough to say we make a huge profit from it. But, I just think it would have been nice that our flickr account (Tim- the photographer) was credited and that they asked our permission first.

On 22/01/2009 nmonteith wrote:>On 22/01/2009 Josh Caple wrote:>>If i drank coffee i would be choking on it right now! I've never had>a>>news paper shot used with prior permission.>>So, have you asked about it Josh? What's the story??

Have I asked what? The only thing I ask is where did they get the photo, and where do I send my invoice.

On 22/01/2009 Loz and Tim wrote:>Thanks for all the insights guys....! I also saw that thing on copyright>saying that "reporting news" is exempt (after posting it). Im thinking>the best thing to do would be to contact flickr/yahoo and go from there?>Im not one for "sueing" and don't want to be accused of bagging the media>when we havn't obtained legal advice about whether they have really done>anything wrong (as they may be allowed to do this, without checking legal>advice, we probably won't know). >>Wouldn't it be a nice bonus for climbers though, to receive a payment>for what they have done and donate it back to the climbing community/re-bolting>fund to prevent further injuries or to donate it to Nick's memorial. I>don't care about the money for the photo myself. We are just amateur photographers>really (though Tim has sold some photos to Rock Mag), but definately not>enough to say we make a huge profit from it. But, I just think it would>have been nice that our flickr account (Tim- the photographer) was credited>and that they asked our permission first.>>Dont know- any other ideas?

You don't need to sue them, and I know what you mean about not really caring but the fact is that these people have exploited Tim's effort & talent as a photographer & they are profiting from it their blatant disregard of copyright laws, although they must know that many people would be happy with just being asked permission. I know all about deadlines, but how hard is a quick email or PM to ask for permission?
At any rate, they have left the ball in your court through their actions & as such IMO you should be invoicing them for whatever you feel is appropriate. If you would like some help with the process let me know, I'd be more than happy.

Invoicing is a waste of time. They won't pay it. Just hassle them so they will think before doing it again. An insider in the biz told me today that they rely on people being too poor to sue them. That was the unofficial company policy at their newspaper.

On 22/01/2009 nmonteith wrote:>Invoicing is a waste of time. They won't pay it. Just hassle them so they>will think before doing it again. An insider in the biz told me today that>they rely on people being too poor to sue them. That was the unofficial>company policy at their newspaper.

As one who has worked as a news journo in Sydney I can say Neil that you speak the truth.
One of my bosses loved to tell young journos to say to aggrieved punters: "Ask them if they've got enough money to sue (insert name of company here)".

In science, essentially, we quote what we like from the public sphere (eg. Chockstone) as long as the
reference is given, and quote from private correspondence with permission. Figures (eg. photographs,
drawings) are reproduced with permission; money may or may not change hands. Having worked using
this system for so long, I think I'd find it hard to move into journalism!

If I was a journo I wouldn't troll, I'd mostly lurk and occasionally identify myself to ask a specific
question as Eleri has here.

Someone I know considered sueing a newspaper once for defamation. The editor told him that if he
proceeded, they'd dig up every bit of dirt on him they could and then some and really defame him. My
associate backed off.